too little too late. though i kinda want xbox to fail because i partly blame them for this dismal rpg generation. and ive hated the xbox since the first one that was broadband only when a lot of people still had dial up. so they have a history of trying to force things.

That's really dumb. Microsoft isn't to blame for the state RPGs. Hell, they funded two turn based JRPGs personally.

Wanting either big console to fail screams "fanboy." At the end of the day, competition is what pushes the industry forward.

too little too late. though i kinda want xbox to fail because i partly blame them for this dismal rpg generation. and ive hated the xbox since the first one that was broadband only when a lot of people still had dial up. so they have a history of trying to force things.

That's really dumb. Microsoft isn't to blame for the state RPGs. Hell, they funded two turn based JRPGs personally.

Wanting either big console to fail screams "fanboy." At the end of the day, competition is what pushes the industry forward.

While I don't especially agree with the sentiment, I don't think MS funding two turn-based JRPGs over 6 years ago really vindicates them. They're partially responsible for the hit-driven, AAA-centric, "this game must sell 5 million copies to succeed" mentality that many studios are grappling with.

That said, I also think that MS pushing broadband in the original Xbox is not a bad thing. Broadband wasn't required, and it enabled them to deliver a feature-set for online that was very forward-thinking. Maybe you didn't like it, and it did alienate some people, but you can't argue with the results. Maybe the situation with new Kinect is the same, but I think networking capabilities and a camera are two different things, so a direct comparison would be disingenuous.

Logged

Friends, waffles, work. Or waffles, friends, work. Doesn't matter, but work is third.

I'm guessing the region free thing was because CD Projekt had a few choice words for them not having a launch in Poland.

I was thinking about this too actually.

From what I understand though, you still have to be online when you first set up the console, I guess to register your XBL account. I'm not sure whether there's any kind of a check in. Hopefully not, as it wouldn't make sense. Pretty stunned they did such a huge reversal. Even more stunned that it's region free.

At the end of the day, competition is what pushes the industry forward.

This is true... and it's why the success of Steam prompted Sony to push more for digital, with the digital-only PSP go which even as a failure still pushed most PSP games to be same day digital releases from that point on, culminating in same day guarantee on their Vita/PS4 games and even with Nintendo doing similar on 3DS (later on) and Wii U (day one.) This is actually an area where the Xbox IS behind, the XB1's picking up on it but the 360 is the only seriously active platform now where I absolutely CAN NOT get a game the same day digitally as physically. And with the rumors circulating that the family sharing was just limited to 60 minutes it was likely a lame feature especially in contrast to Sony's PS+ trials that don't give a damn if anyone you ever knew even has the game. Well, I need to look into that and see if it had something saner like once a day, but even that still doesn't make it too appealing a feature.

The path forward isn't linear and obvious, I think what Microsoft wanted was truly a dead end, whereas the more organic path of digital just eating more and more of the sale share IS the path forward, especially as many online features can be added without disabling offline play for games with no use for them.

I am really shocked about the reversal, even more about the region free. At the price Microsoft is selling the system in some regions, why buy it in your region, if you can get it cheaper importing it from the United States? Good they changed the poilicy though, really don't want Sony to become fat and lazy with no competition. Xbone was looking DOA, if it launched with all that DRM crap.

too little too late. though i kinda want xbox to fail because i partly blame them for this dismal rpg generation. and ive hated the xbox since the first one that was broadband only when a lot of people still had dial up. so they have a history of trying to force things.

That's really dumb. Microsoft isn't to blame for the state RPGs. Hell, they funded two turn based JRPGs personally.

Wanting either big console to fail screams "fanboy." At the end of the day, competition is what pushes the industry forward.

While I don't especially agree with the sentiment, I don't think MS funding two turn-based JRPGs over 6 years ago really vindicates them. They're partially responsible for the hit-driven, AAA-centric, "this game must sell 5 million copies to succeed" mentality that many studios are grappling with.

That said, I also think that MS pushing broadband in the original Xbox is not a bad thing. Broadband wasn't required, and it enabled them to deliver a feature-set for online that was very forward-thinking. Maybe you didn't like it, and it did alienate some people, but you can't argue with the results. Maybe the situation with new Kinect is the same, but I think networking capabilities and a camera are two different things, so a direct comparison would be disingenuous.

Can you give some specific examples that show Microsoft is responsible for the business model? I see it as a matter of technology and marketing costs.

If anything, the big publishing houses like EA, Ubisoft and Activision are responsible for the current 'blockbuster' model. I can't say I blame them. Gaming is capitalist and they are just giving gamers what they want.

At the end of the day, competition is what pushes the industry forward.

The path forward isn't linear and obvious, I think what Microsoft wanted was truly a dead end, whereas the more organic path of digital just eating more and more of the sale share IS the path forward, especially as many online features can be added without disabling offline play for games with no use for them.

Hearing about the 60 minute limit, it was a total dead end. Just more MS nickle and diming customers. You can't trust these console giants with anything. A digital library should have value. We should be able to cherish the digital ownership of games the same way we cherish physical media.

I suppose the reason it worked so well on PC is that it came to us in a COMPLETELY organic way by gamers choosing their preferred delivery platforms. You don't get that choice with a console. You invest in the console and just trust that the benefits work in your favor. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not expecting Nintendo, MS or Sony to do me any favors.

Microsoft's publisher-friendly practices and their aggressive move to court big money (CoD DLC, CoD itself, the NFL, EA/Acti friendliness) and their decision to basically continue as is for indies all suggest to me that they're very down with the current AAA-centric model. You don't break profit records with indie games-- you break them with your annual CoD release, release-parties, advertising money, tie-in money, and that sort of thing. You're right that the big pubs are responsible too, but Microsoft absolutely supports that model (where do we think the recently 180-d DRM choices came from? It was (if you ask me) a clear attempt to cozy up to big pubs).

I don't like it, but it's absolutely where the big money is, and I think that's exactly what Microsoft courts.

Logged

Friends, waffles, work. Or waffles, friends, work. Doesn't matter, but work is third.

Having met the Devs of Skulls of the Shogun and talked with them, this doesn't surprise me. They weren't naysaying Microsoft too badly at the time, but when I asked about why they went with Microsoft instead of PC I got an answer like the one they gave in the article - seemed like the best idea at the time & they have lots of money. I hope things work out for them! It becomes a lot easier to care about a game when you've met the people making it. I've got my pre-order of the Bone-A-Fide edition, do you?

If anything, the big publishing houses like EA, Ubisoft and Activision are responsible for the current 'blockbuster' model. I can't say I blame them. Gaming is capitalist and they are just giving gamers what they want.

Now, I don't agree that Microsoft is solely to blame for the sorry state of the industry at the moment, but using capatalism as an excuse is the exact kind of laziness that caused the problem in the first place. Nobody is or (at least during this console cycle) was looking for alternative solutions to the problem burgeoning development costs. As a business you should be forward thiking. It wasn't until smartphones became a big deal that anyone started looking at alternative payment methods, let alone releasing games at different levels of production vale with variable pricing. Mid-level development died (well, shifted into developing middle-ware) on console and your options were Indie or AAA with nobody taking lessons from things like Deadly Premonition, which made money in North America because it was released at a budget price. This is without going into the shitty investment and payment models that publishers use.Microsoft along with all the other major players saw where things were headed knew they could survive in the new climate and kept making things they way they knew how. I have to agree with Taelus, they like things they way they are and share the blame with all of them. This was a problem for the film industry twice in the past and it surprises me Video games haven't learned anything from it. Big hits will still be big hits even if you finance smaller productions to help keep the ecosystem afloat (plus, there is the added benefit of stumbling on a huge profit margin on a runaway success from a smaller investment).Luckily Japan still had handheld and we had PC development or else things would be even worse.

"Respawn comprises about 60 developers, and devoting months of their work to single-player missions most players blow through in minutes just doesn't make sense, Zampella said.

"And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5 percent of people finish the game," he said. "Really, you split the team. They're two different games. They're balanced differently, they're scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus as little time as possible rushing to the end [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? To us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense."

Make a Titanfall thread next time, I don't really want a thread to start with a post like that, and while it's a major XB1 title it's neither a full exclusive (on X360 and PC at launch, likely PS4 and maybe PS3 later on) or news directly relevant to the XB1 itself like the bit about how the Cloud is SUPPOSED to make that the definitive version.

There was an interview with the Titanfall guys (sorry, it was a couple days ago and I don't have the link...) in which they basically admitted that their much-touted 'cloud' stuff was nothing more than matchmaking servers...whee.

There was an interview with the Titanfall guys (sorry, it was a couple days ago and I don't have the link...) in which they basically admitted that their much-touted 'cloud' stuff was nothing more than matchmaking servers...whee.

Wait, really?

Logged

Friends, waffles, work. Or waffles, friends, work. Doesn't matter, but work is third.